why are most soft synths and effects so expensive?

[kritikon]

Bones certainly has a point with all of his comments. Bones forgets however, that at somewhere like KvR, we're not all gigging musicians. I don't do music for any monetary gain any more, and I was never into anything live. I often don't even complete a tune - I can spend weeks working on something, almost get there, but transfer the whole lot into the bin just because it bored me, or because one little aspect became to fiddly.

I really do enjoy spending several hours just patching up weird sounds. I'd happily sit at my Wavestation for 3 hours, and make one single patch that plays some big intro pad sound on several channels that lasts and evolves for a whole minute. I can do blindingly simple dub tracks that would take anyone an hour to throw together, but again bin the whole lot, even if it's perfect, if I can't get that one weird evolving synthetic solo sound over the top just right.

That is the end in itself and it is a pleasure to me. So obviously, to me, a big complex synth has far more attractions than a simple and quick one. My whole aim is to bend weird sounds out of a synth. I don't much care about "phat" basslines and all that crap.

And I'm not the only one. Korg sold a few Wavestations (it wasn't one of the huge-sellers, but it did OK) - there's no way anyone who wanted quick access and easy sounds would go near a Wavestation - it's the complete opposite, but there must be a few users for whom ease of use isn't the prime concern.

Not that I don't like straight-forward GUIs, but it just isn't a major consideration when I buy a synth nowadays. It doesn't matter if it takes me 10 seconds or an hour to get a simple twangy bass - I don't do twangy basses or detuned saw leads etc. You can't lump the whole VSTi market in together. There may well be a need for devs to price tarnce synths accordingly - maybe the majority who use those don't have time or money, and there's probably more kiddies with only pocket money who want a detuned saw synth in particular (so VSTis and pricing etc should maybe be aimed at them)...there is a slice of the market for whom $200 and a complex beast of a synth is not a big issue, so why should they be priced basement-bargain-bin, when we don't mind paying for the time and effort gone into development of something that we have the time and inclination for, and appreciation of.

And throughout the history of consumer synths, whether that be h/w or s/w...there must be a substantial market for people like me or similar - when you look at alot of the 80s and 90s synths, there were many that really weren't quick or easy. There's a few non-easy VSTi too but they still sell.

In fact, when I was doing music with selling it as the intention, that was probably the time I bought the least gear - as Bones says...you don't necessarily have the time to piss around with complex synths. But in terms of pros, and people who just do it for fun, the pros are almost for sure in the numerical minority. And the pros aren't necessarily the biggest slice of the market. They may be a wealthy section of the market, but not necessarily the money-earning slice of it that keeps companies in business. And don't think for one minute that the dabblers have no money - if it's your pleasure, you can invest alot of time AND money into it. What I don't spend on mobile phones and Playstation & games and the latest HiFi and home theatre setup...I spend on audio stuff.

[droolmaster0]

How I spend my time, and what I have accomplished is really none of your business...
... However you simply don't seem to differentiate that what you may find worthwhile may not jive with the experience of others.

But it is certainly pertinent to my argument. It seems to me that all the expensive synths cater to noodlers such as yourself rather than to people more in my situation of having professional responsibilites [band, record company, etc] and limited time to create output. This goes totally against the general perception here that these instruments are somehow more professional simply because they are more expensive and/or more complex.

You know, you're just kind of an asshole.

[BONES]

I think you are ignoring a very large segment of working and successful musicians who use deep, complex, expensive synths.

I'm not ignoring anybody, I'm saying that there are plenty of people out there with needs that differ from those of the average KVRist. Its you guys who seem to be ignoring them.

Bones forgets however, that at somewhere like KvR, we're not all gigging musicians.

No I don't. I don't presume to speak for anyone but me, except that I know a lot of others whose needs are similar to my own who I don't see being catered for by any of the high priced synths. And I use the example of the simplicity of many of their factory presets to show that even the sound designers who make them rarely, if ever, make use of their complexity. If its not being used, its just getting in the way.

[arke]

I'd rather have 5 easy-to-use synths that each do one particular thing really well than one synth that does it all but takes 5 times the effort to get anything from.

After playing around with alot of stuff (including demos of various modular things), I have to say that this is certainly true.

I've got Vanguard for those "phat" synthes, Superwave P8 makes great synth strings, Kubik (which I haven't completely figured out yet) for pads. For everything else, one or more instances of the FL 3xOsc does the trick (especially since I know it inside out by now).

Some people will accuse me of being a hypocrite, stating that I was loudly praising Reason's rack stuff. And I was, too, but Reason isn't a modular synth, it just has two very good complete synths that are easy to learn and easy to chain together.

[ugo]

except that I know a lot of others whose needs are similar to my own who I don't see being catered for by any of the high priced synths.

one potential reason for this might be because many people these days believe that more features = higher value. as a result, synths with lots of features can often ask higher prices than those with fewer features.

-ugo

[HanafiH]

Imagine what your workspace would look like if you could magically transform every piece of VST software you have into an equivalent piece of hardware. Could you work with it?

I can't argue with BONES position about the complexity thing. Most complex h/w synths bury the complexity, sometimes even into the MIDI implementation and have just a few knobs on the front. But then again, historically a musician would spend far longer digging into a very few h/w than seems to be the fashion with dozens of s/w synths.

It does completely turn me off to see an interface the size of a CD case with two hundred control points on it.

[BONES]

Just out of interest, do you consider "the size of a CD case" to be small or large? Against my laptop it seem slargish but against my big monitor its really kinda small.

[beej]

As always, it really depends. Sometimes you want to get a sound quickly, and knowledge of your tools will let you call up an appropriate instrument and get pretty much what you need quickly.

Using a subtractive synth, say impOSCar, gives you a fairly small featureset to work with, but you work within those limits to get something nice. With some controllers you can program by feel alone, and it's a very nice way to work.

However, there are benefits to complexity. For instance, I've pulled up a pad sound on impOSCar. Now I'm thinking, Ok, would be nice if we could have another oscillator up high, with some random modulations doing a little twinkly thing - and already we've run into limitations, as there are no more oscillators to go around. (We either do something else, or have to start thinking of workarounds like layering synths etc, all of which are compromises.)

This is why I like the approach of something like Zebra. You start with simple things and add what you need. If you don't need 6 oscillators, then the controls aren't there cluttering up the interface. If you need an extra oscillator, bring it up and it's there.

Kritikon mentioned the Wavestation, which is a synth I have programmed extensively. People often bring it out as an example of a complex synth, and I don't think it is - it's quite straightforward actually. However, making sounds is very much about layering and subtle blending to get your tones (as the WS can't do much to disguise the raw samples, being limited in filters/waveshapers etc), and it's a little different to subtractive, additive or any other synthesis. It's kind of "Middletive" synthesis.

But again, making sounds on that is similar to the Zebra approach above. I start off with a two oscillator patch, pick some waveforms, maybe make one of the waves a simple crossfading wavesequence between two or three waves to get a little motion, pick some pad type envelopes. Let's bung on a little delay to the performance for texture. Ok, now I want something going on at the top end - add a second patch to the performance, shift it up high, filter out the bottom, route it through a more intense effect for wetness. Sounds great, we're rolling. Now a deep rhythmic pattern drone in the sub-bass underneath would be cool - no problem, add a new patch, dial up the settings. Sound wicked! What would be *really* cool is a slow, evolving bell/gong type attack on this. New patch, call up settings... etc etc.

So a sound on a wavestation can be a simple 1-osc pcm pad, or it can be (subject to polyphony of course) a layer of 8 four-oscillator patches, with each waveform running rhythmic or smooth wave sequences, with vector mix positions going randomly and so on. A sound could have 50 parameters, or it could have 2000+ parameters.

For me it's a nice way of handling complexity - it helps remove some barriers when you want to come up with something more than a fairly standard synth-type sound. But largely speaking, I don't want to load up a synth and have those 2000 parameters staring me in the face, because it's a barrier to starting, and it slows down the simple stuff, therefore it's not good for the workflow.

Complexity should be removing barriers, not creating them.

[Urs]

I don't have time to go through endless multi-page GUI's to get sounds and I have no desire to spend countless hours learning to master something that, at the end of the day, won't do anything for me that I cannot do with much simpler tools of equal or higher sound quality.

Hmmm, but you spend endless hours in SynthEdit. You even put skins on your creations. So in fact, your using one of the most complex synths out there in a way that just scratches its surface.

I think you are ignoring a very large segment of working and successful musicians who use deep, complex, expensive synths.

I'm not ignoring anybody, I'm saying that there are plenty of people out there with needs that differ from those of the average KVRist. Its you guys who seem to be ignoring them.

Well, I'm not sure if we've got the same definition of "average KVRist" here. I'm not even sure if KVR is the common denominator of all people who use computers in music and thus might be interested in using plugins.

If I'm not completely mistaken, you distinguish between people who have simple needs and people who have complex needs for synthesis. You say that "we" (whoever that is) ignore the first group. That is not true in general, if we look at it from a different angle:

I observe that many people need ready-to-use patches while others love to tweak. And a few people love to dig a synth in depth.

For the first group, it's actually totally indifferent whether the underlying synthesis is complex or not. It's just the sound that comes out of it that counts. Thus we (we = software developers) provide a lot of presets that are hopefully inspiring.

For those who love to tweak, some (but not all) developers spend a lot of time on making things as accessible as possible. That's why there are concepts like easy-edit-pages for otherwise complex synths.

Those who want to dive deeply into it have no need for yet another simple synth. They've seen it all, you know. They love options and fresh concepts. In my thinking, it's not about "the more the better", it's about "the more fun the better".

So I wouldn't exactly say that "we" are ignoring anyone. I'd rather say that you are ignoring the fact that you argue against your own needs. It's you who's using a complex synth to fullfill your needs. I wouldn't be surprised if your needs were as fullfilled with i.e. Tera if you had taken the time to learn that one rather than spending all those hours on SE.

Urs

[ianweb123]

......

Excellent post. I think that you summed it up perfectly, and the concept of SynthEdit as an uber-complex synth is an interesting one..

[ianweb123]

..Most complex h/w synths bury the complexity, sometimes even into the MIDI implementation and have just a few knobs on the front....

In hardware terms that was probably more to do with a cost saving when dealing with 'software based but with hardware controller' synths.

Obviously with older analogs the controls were an intrinsic part of the construction so a different rule applied.

[eduardo_b]

I'd basically want to combine a powerful synth engine behind the scenes together with a synth programmers knowledge base, tricks, techniques and so on to create some kind of sound expert system, accessible to the end user but still employing really skilled programmers' tricks in the back end.

Actually, I think there are a number of developers who have attempted this, but the results are that as they find unique ways to combine features, it becomes more difficult to simplify the interface. Usability becomes a critical issue when combining features with a gui. And the resulting sounds are sometimes not necessarily better, just different.

For example, two recent attempts within $10 of each other are Blue and Surge. For all the praise about Surge's interface, I find Blue vastly superior in both overall sound and functionality. I don't "get" Surge, although others think it one of the best synths ever offered. To me, it makes noise more than musical sound, which means the interface is irrelevant to me.

It could simply be that Blue comes with amazing presets, whereas Surge does not. I know there is at least one person whose posts indicate he thinks presets are not a way to judge a synth, but I say they prove just how good a synth is or can be. Presets not only help a developer demonstrate the qualities of his or her synth, but also provide customers with a baseline from which to test their own creativity. To me, presets are a sound expert system.

In the end, the developer cannot please all the people all of the time because personal preferences, natural abilities and musical goals all influence what a customer wants (or needs). When the instrument matches the customer really well, the customer will pay $200 and feel lucky to have the plug-in.

[eduardo_b]

I observe that many people need ready-to-use patches while others love to tweak. And a few people love to dig a synth in depth.

Your assessment is a good one because it recognizes the reality of a segmented market, with few synths being able to satisfy all segments. I'd guess 80 percent of the market is people who want an easy-to-use synth with lots of good presets, but with enough potential to learn and explore sound design. The developer has to guess or be able to figure out how to serve this market segment, or design a synth mostly for tweakers. The thing about tweakers, no matter the field of endeavor, is that tweaking is as important as the results.

[advaya]

The thing about tweakers, no matter the field of endeavor, is that tweaking is as important as the results.

I fancy myself as a 'tweaker' from time to time... So I can agree with that statement... Unfortunately, my results often end up sounding like some hackneyed version of one of the presets included in the factory bank...

Though it's always fun to try...

[shamann]

Why can't commercial developers make niche versions of their uber-synths?

Interestingly, Virsyn seems to have just done that. See here. I haven't tried it yet, so I don't know how different it is from just being a preset player.

Ohm Force also did that sort of thing with Symptohm PE. They stripped away all the synth gubbins and gave you preset access and gubbins control only through the Melohman octave. Which is actually a fairly neat and simple way of working, using 12 dedicated keyboard keys as your only means of adjustment.